Allahabad Court February 2006 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.D. Jaiswal Son of Sri S.B. Jaiswal Vs. Sri Dwarikadhish Temple Trust ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All259; 2006(3)AWC2823
Ajoy Nath Ray and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.1. This is an special appeal from a four line interim order, dated the 14th of February, 2006, whereby the directions for affidavits were given but the interim order, which was subsisting in aid of the writ petition until then was not extended.2. The appellant come up before us saying that grant of interim order of a substantial nature makes a judgment of an Hon'ble Single judge appealable as much as the withholding of such an interim order by an Hon'ble Single Judge.3. However, another point of appealability is also taken by Mr. Shashi Nandan on behalf of his client, whom we shall call the later bidders. 4. The facts are basically these. A large piece of trust properties was allegedly agreed to be sold by the trustees of a certain trust in Kanpur to the clients of Mr. Ravi Kant, whom we shall call the first offerors. According to them the property was agreed to be sold to them for Rs. 1.61 crore and a banker's cheque of Rs. 85 lac was paid and encas...
SachIn Kumar Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1784
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated 14.11.2005, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, dismissing revision preferred against order 10.11.2005 of Settlement Officer Consolidation by which Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar directed Sub-Divisional Officer, Burhana, Muzaffarnagar and Station Officer, Police Station Shahpur, Muzaffarnagar to immediately stop unauthorized construction of petitioner and take preventive steps on Application of Arvind Kumar-opposite party No. 3. Petitioner further prayed to issue a mandamus commanding opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute.2. The facts of the case are that plots in dispute including Plot No. 62 are under the consolidation scheme and allotment of Chafes were made, but from the materials on record it is established that by the order of higher consolidation authorities carvation of C...
Virendra Kumar JaIn and Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)479; [2006]283ITR541(All)
1. The abovenoted writ petitions arise from a common impugned order dated April 4, 2005 (annexure 5 in both the writ petitions), passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 127(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (called 'the Act'), read with Section 11, Wealth-tax Act and Section 7 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, transferring the cases of the petitioners from Kanpur to Delhi. A show-cause notice dated March 16, 2005, was given to the petitioner as required under Section 127(1) of the Act/annexure 3 to the writ petition giving opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order under Section 127(2) of the Act. The said notice was given in view of the search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act conducted on July 2, 2003, in the premises belonging to the firm and companies (referred to as Shikhar Gutkha group) and their partners/directors while proposing to transfer the cases of the said assessee-petitioner 'for the purposes of co-ordin...
Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)203CTR(All)470; [2006]283ITR547(All)
1. Heard Shri Ravi Kant, senior advocate, and Shri R.S. Agrawal, advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, and Shri Shambhu Chopra, advocate, and D. Awasthi, advocate for the respondents.2. For convenience, we may note the salient facts of the case in order to appreciate the dispute between the parties and the legal issues to be decided by this Court. M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Ltd. (called 'the petitioner'), is the firm operating from Kanpur, and assessed at Kanpur and engaged in manufacturing and selling tobacco production, popularly known as gutkha under brand name of 'Shikhar Gutkha'. There are other firms and individuals who are also dealing with the said brand-product and operating from Kanpur. Pradeep Kurnar Agrawal, who is one of the partners of M/s. Vijay Kumar Pradeep Kumar (petitioner of Writ Petition No. 756 of 2005) admittedly has its factory/office and residence at Delhi. The said Pradeep Kumar is also a director in M/s. Trimurti Fragrances P. Limited, the petitioner in the...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. District Judge and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)AWC2180
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-tenant challenge the order dated 5th December, 2001, passed by the revisional court under the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short 'the Act') and the order dated 24th August, 2001, passed by the trial court, whereby the trial court decreed the suit filed by respondent-landlord and directed ejectment of the petitioners-tenant from the accommodation in question, on revision, the revisional court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners-tenant.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent-landlord filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment after terminating the tenancy of the petitioners-tenant, who is admittedly the tenant of the accommodation in question. The petitioners-tenant denied the assertion of the landlord that he is in default of payment of rent and further that the suit is liable to be dismi...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohtas Projects Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)204CTR(All)139
1. We have heard Sri D.D. Chopra for the appellant and Sri S.K. Garg, senior advocate, appearing n behalf of the respondent.2. In the relevant assessment year, the assessee was engaged in real estate development and construction activities. In the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1998-99, the AO made a reference under Section 131(1)(d) of the Act to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) on 7th Feb., 2001 to estimate the cost of construction of properties constructed by the assessee named as Golf Link Apartments, Park Road, Lucknow and Coronation Farms at Kursi Road, Lucknow. The DVO has submitted his report on 26th Feb., 2002, estimating the cost of construction at Rs. 7,67,47,000 as against the cost of Rs. 5,77,02,689 disclosed by the assessee. The difference of the cost amounting to Rs. 30,55,436 was added by the AO but, the addition was deleted by the CIT(A), on appeal being preferred by the assessee.The CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the AO was having no jurisd...
Triloki Nath Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)AWC377
Arun Tandon, J.1. Heard Sri Rajendra Rai, advocate on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents.2. From the records of the present writ petition, it is apparently clear that the services of petitioner, who was employed as daily wage employee, were terminated under an order dated 30.6.1992. The order dated 30.6.1992 was challenged before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29855 of 1992. Mohan Prasad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. in the writ petition an interim order was granted by this Court dated 19.8.1992, whereunder the order terminating, the petitioner's services, was stayed, and it was provided that the petitioner shall be paid salary and other benefits. It was further clarified that the order will be effective only if no substantive appointment has been made on the post held by the petitioner and the said post has not been abolished. For ready reference interim order of this Court is being quoted herein below:Issue notice...
Lal Bachan and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1781
Krishna Murari, J.1. These are two connected writ petitions arising out of the same judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation and between the same parties.2. Heard, Sri Shri Kant and Sri Indrasen Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties in both the writ petitions.3. The dispute relates to khata No. 56 of village Padari Aman and Khata No. 97 of village Phulwaria. In the basic year, the petitioners of Writ Petition No. 5788 of 1973 were recorded as Sirdars of khatas in dispute. An objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by contesting respondents claiming to be Sirdars on the allegation that khatas belong to their common ancestor. It was alleged that holdings in dispute were acquired by common ancestor Jhaggar who had two sons namely Ram Tahal and Tulsi. The petitioners belong to the branch of Ram Tahal whereas contesting respondents are descendants of Tulsi. After the death of Jhaggar only the name of Ram Ta...
Ram Lakhan and anr. Vs. Ghurahoo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: 2006(2)AWC1927
Umeshwar Pandey, J.1. This second appeal of the plaintiff has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1986, passed by the lower appellate court (IInd. Additional District Judge, Ghazipur).2. The appellant had filed a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated 10.12.1984 on several grounds taken in the pleadings including the ground that the sale had been obtained by practising fraud upon him which could .be easily manipulated by the defendant/respondent on account of his old age and also on account of his being illiterate. He further stated that no consideration in the present transfer by sale had passed from the defendant to him and he was cleverly deceived by the respondent, who represented to the plaintiff that he wanted a surety bond to be executed by him to indemnify the defendant towards the payment of some dues to the Government. The plaintiff was also given to understand that in case he did not execute the surety bond, the defendant/respondent might face arrest an...
Smt. Bhagwan Devi and anr. Vs. Smt. Beni Bai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006All251
ORDERJanardan Sahai, J.1. The plaintiff Smt. Beni Bai is a widow. Ram Charan Lal her husband was the owner of two houses numbered 135 and 136 in Mohalla Nai Basti, Jhansi. House No. 135 was purchased by her husband in the year 1953 in a court auction for a sum of Rs. 1150 and house No. 136 was purchased by him in the year 1958 for a sum of Rs. 250/-. Defendant No. 4 Sri Ram Rastogi is a moneylender. Ram Charan Lal borrowed some money from Sri Ram Rastogi, which he could not repay. In the year 1966, Ram Charan Lal executed a sale deed of the two houses in favour of Sri Ram Rastogi for a consideration of Rs. 500/-. Ram Charan Lal died in 1980. After his death both the houses were sold by Sri Ram Rastogi to defendant No. 1 Smt. Bhagwan Devi for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. The defendant No. 2 Narain Das Verma, husband of Bhagwan Devi, was a tenant of house No. 135 and defendant No. 3 Bhaiya Lal was a tenant of house No. 136. Their tenancy was continuing since the days of Ram Charan Lal. After th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »